The Instigator
GoOrDin
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
kman100
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points

Islam vs Fools who know it all

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
kman100
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/4/2015 Category: News
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 920 times Debate No: 72922
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (26)
Votes (2)

 

GoOrDin

Con

If a muslim bomber wanted to kill people, he wouldn't kill children and wives on the street. He would blow up the club. Atheists, who want whores and drunken idiots alive blow up children int eh streets when they want to blame islam. This is how the war has been propagated. Learn the difference between Islam and Pagan Muslims. And learn to notice when ISIS is being used as a mask for atheistic war crimes with the intent on blaming religion. Because religion is all that stands between the world and sex slavery.

Tell me that when a completely anti-muslim action is blamed on an Islamic group that isn't exactly what the Quran says, "to learn the difference between. Pagans(non believers) who pretend to be islamic and True Muslims,
- that that is NOT false propaganda against Islam.

I say it is.
kman100

Pro

I'm not entirely sure what Con is arguing or what the resolution is, but I'll bite.
I will just rebut Cons arguments, as I can't make arguments until I know what the resolution is.


1. "If a muslim bomber wanted to kill people, he wouldn't kill children and wives on the street"

If someone is a suicide bomber, they definitely won't behave rationally. Additionally, suicide bombers goals are to spread terror, especially by killing civilians. A muslim bomber would do that, but so would a christian bomber. I'm not exactly sure what your point is.

2. "Atheists who want whores and drunken idiots alive blow up children [in the] streets when they want to blame islam"

This is a very extreme claim that you haven't supported. Athiests definitely don't want children blown up. Nothing about atheism promotes killing people, as atheism is simply a LACK of belief.

3. " Learn the difference between Islam and Pagan Muslims"

The term "Pagan Muslims" is an oxymoron. While paganism doesn't have a concrete definition, it still implies a polythiestic belief that diverges from believing in the "one true god". You can't have a Pagan Muslim.

4. "ISIS is being used as a mask for atheistic war crimes"

The notion that ISIS is actually atheist is proposterous. Since this claim goes directly against the status qou, Con must support it, which he has not done so. This is just an unproven assertion.

5. "religion is all that stands between the world and sex slavery"

Please elaborate this bold assertion
Debate Round No. 1
GoOrDin

Con

GoOrDin forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
GoOrDin

Con

GoOrDin forfeited this round.
kman100

Pro

Extend.

To summarize- as Con has made the claim that goes against the status qou, he has the BoP. He has not proved that ISIS is a coverup for atheism (or what ever it is that he is trying to prove- the resolution continues to remain elusive), and has not fulfilled his BoP. Vote pro!
Debate Round No. 3
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by kman100 1 year ago
kman100
Your petty ranting in the comments are boring.
Make a debate if you want to actually debate me.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
Con vs Pro: the existence of the Illuminati.
~Con must prove they do not exists by demonstrating all theories considering them are factually not relative to conspiracy/ or the Illuminati.
~Pro, prove the Illuminati are real.
both have BoP

Muslims did not blow up wives and children in the streets of england or Europe. they would target strip clubs and banks and other sinful gathering places. These strikes were claimed by atheists posing as Muslims to start war and fund gun violence and sex trafficking while diverting the governments attention from other crimes.
That was my claim. My opponents never choice to uphold Burden of Proof.

But I did uphold it; Those were not Islamic actions (bombing faithful wives and children instead of whores and drunken bastards at the club.).
Saying you are muslim and preaching the Quran is easy, and can be done by atheists who are using it as a mask for their crimes.

I fulfilled my half of the debate and I won. My opponent came in like a squawking idiot.
15 years old should stop tryingt o debate. they don't even know what BoP is.

everyone has BoP in a debate. Con is the Claim contrary to Pro. Not denial of Pro. An actual claim of contrary evidence. this website is littered with morons.
Posted by Elord 1 year ago
Elord
Wait, I'm so confused. When was there an atheist bombing. Also BoP on both since you are questioning the accepted norm. Like we'd both have to prove the Illuminati's existence.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
your an idiot. just like 90% of the fukking population of this website. BoP is on everyone. and learn how to read grammar.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
BoP.

you were making the claim that all crimes made in the news regarding ISIS were 100% perpetrated all by Muslims and never atheists who traffick guns or sex-slaves under the guise of war and Muslims to escape undetected.
That was your claim by accepting the debate you fucktard.
BoP is on u for choosing to debate me.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
Proffessingt o follow a religion does not make you a member of it.** you were wrong again. It is not a Notruescotsman fallacy.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
Kman u are an idiot. listen,

"Atheists who want drunken idiots and whores alive - are the ones - who blow up loyal wives and children."

Not atheists want,
atheists who want whore and idiots alive.

shIITT
Posted by kman100 1 year ago
kman100
5. You assert that if we accept all morals as man-made, we will lose them. Why would this happen?
All criminals and murderers are certainly not athiests. That's a silly claim. In fact, the vast majority of prisoners are religious. http://www.patheos.com...

Lets take Norway as an example of an atheist country. 30% of norwegians are atheists, and 44% believe in a universal spirit of life force, but not explicitly a God. Norway doesn't have a complete lack of morals or a breakdown of law and order. Norway has one of the worlds lowest rates of homicide http://www.nationmaster.com...
Posted by kman100 1 year ago
kman100
I would prefer to do this in an actual debate, but I'll bite

2. You're simply reasserting your point. There is no reason for an atheist to want children and wives blown up. You still haven't proven why they would want this.

1,3 The reason your argument fails is that is solely rests on the no true scotsman fallacy (http://rationalwiki.org...). You are basically asserting that people who do violent acts in the name of Islam aren't real muslims. However, whether someone is a muslim or not does not depend on whether they follow your personal interpretation of Islam. Just because you think that their interpretation of Islam is false, doesn't mean that they are not muslims. Muslims are people who profess to follow Islam. If they do it wrong, they are still muslims.

4. Wrong. Unless stated otherwise, the BoP is on the person making the claim. That's how it is in science, law and philosophy. If you make a hypothesis, it is on you to prove it. By your reasoning, someone could claim that there is a teapot floating in space between earth and the sun, and then claim that their hypothesis was correct because noone can prove that there isn't a teapot between here and the sun. That's just not how logical discussion works. Additionally, I shouldn't be expected to prove that NO athiests partake in ISIS, as proving absolutes is impossible.
I failed? That's not what the scoreboard says. It says that i'm 8 points ahead, proving that YOU have failed.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
1.A suicide bomber commits suicide bombings for a reason. as a Muslim that would be to target adulterers and drug/gun traffickers. Attacking loyal; wives and children is strictly anti Muslim.

2. "Atheists who want whores and drunken idiots alive blow up children [in the] streets when they want to blame Islam" - fact. Atheists who want these kinds of people alive would be the only ones blowing up wives and children instead. The adulterous population supports and advocates the political injustice through all their actions even if they do not see or understand/ intend for it to be so.

3. Yes the term Pagan Muslim is an oxymoron, that is why you should know the difference between muslims and false muslims.

4. I never said ISIS was completely atheists. I said it was being used as a mask.
And your half of the Debate, by accepting the debate, which is the accepting of the burden of truth that No atheists partake in "ISIS" crimes, was to PROVE that no atheists are using ISIS as a mask to fund gun trafficking and promote war against the Islamic states through government propaganda.
THAT WAS YOUR BURDEN OF PROOF, YOU CHOSE TO DEFEND BY ACCEPTING THE DEBATE. YOU FAILED.

5. without religion the worlds governments fall into corruption, and the police also become corrupt. When all morals are deemed man made, men will loosen their morals and people will suffer.
All politically corrupt people, every rapists, every murderer is and always has been an atheist. Removing religion will increase scandals and crime rates without any stipulation.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 1 year ago
Chaosism
GoOrDinkman100Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF by Con. Con made rash, unsupported generalizations against a group of people. Pro's arguments went unanswered.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
GoOrDinkman100Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture. Pro refuted Con's arguments, and con didn't respond to the debate after that.